View Full Version : Re: Visible Human dataset as a standard for biomechanical models?

07-11-2002, 11:47 PM
Dear Anita,

I come from engineering background, we work with 50thPercentile dummies
for occupant safety studies. Its a standard practice to do so , as validated
results are also available for these. Does safety study fall into what you are
terming as biomechanical study ? If yes it should get acceptance in the
automotive safety world before it becomes a everyday practice , with a
good reason to do so.

I don't know whether i made relevant sense,as I come from a different
background, but subscribe to this group as it helps understand the
full perspective .

Axiom Consulting.

At 01:26 PM 7/11/2002 -0700, Anita Vasavada wrote:
>Although many of us involved in modeling of human biomechanics often
>develop models of the 50th percentile male or female, each research
>group's model is slightly different. The Visible Human Project has made
>it possible to develop musculoskeletal models (e.g., [1]) from a single
>set of image data. If models are created from these data, it seems to me
>that it would facilitate the creation of standard human biomechanical
>However, one potential problem with the Visible Male dataset is its
>size. ( I haven't evaluated the Visible Female dataset yet). A
>comparison with the 1988 US Army Anthropometric Survey [2], showed that
>the Visible Male is 3% taller and 15% heavier than the 50th percentile
>male. I personally am interested in the neck musculoskeletal system, and
>found that certain external head and neck dimensions were 6-30% greater
>than the 50th percentile male. Garner and Pandy measured arm muscle
>volumes from Visible Male images that were more than 3 times greater
>than in anatomical studies (which were primarily done in cadavers). Even
>considering the difference between live human and cadaver muscles, the
>Visible Male seems to be an extremely big, muscular guy. This would
>likely mean larger estimated magnitudes of muscle forces and moment arms
>compared to a 50th percentile male.
>Despite these size issues, I still see value in developing models from
>Visible Human data, for elucidating general principles of biomechanics
>and motor control. While I'm not advocating use of the Visible Human
>data as the *only* standard for biomechanical models, I would like to
>hear people's opinions on its use. Is it reasonable to use the data as a
>representation of the average male or female, or is size a problem? Do
>people anticipate that its use will facilitate sharing of data? Do
>people have any other comments or concerns about using the Visible Human
>dataset for biomechanical studies? As always, I will post a summary of
>Anita Vasavada
>[1] Garner, B, and Pandy, M (2001). Computer Methods in Biomechanics and
>Biomedical Engineering 4: 93-126.
>[2] Gordon, CC, et al. (1989). 1988 anthropometric survey of U.S. army
>personnel: methods and summary statistics.
>Anita Vasavada, Ph.D.
>Assistant Professor
>Departments of Biological Systems Engineering and VCAPP
>Programs in Bioengineering and Neuroscience
>Washington State University
>Pullman, WA 99164-6120
>voice: (509) 335-7533
>fax: (509) 335-4650
>To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
>For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l

To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l